Smiddy3
How is this possible ? With all of the flip-flops ,evident realities
not realized ,false predictions ,dates , about The big "A"
happening around 1975 ,then before the end of the 20th Century ,not
to mention those previous predictions early in the 20th Century?
Where is this growth coming
from ?
I
think we need to look closer at what is being described as “Growth”
In
a world with almost 8 billion people, I don’t consider a 6 million
spurt in “Publishers” NOT Committed BAPTIZED members, (There’s
a difference) - over a span of about 40 years to be considered
stupendous. .
A
publisher can be an UNBAPTIZED member in good standing who may decide
not to get baptized. That happens a lot.
Correct me if I'm wrong, but the Graph says “Average Publishers” Not Average
Baptized Membership growth.
So
how many Actual Baptized Members Growth is there really????
The graph is not about growth in baptized members is it?
They
are not stupid to print this data.
From
the Graph we can only extrapolate that;
There was a 6 million growth in PUBLISHERS
for the past 40 years----NOT
Baptized members
What
we do know is that now with the new change, there is not a
time limit to be
considered a publisher. It used to be 15 minutes to be counted as a
publisher, but now according to many posts on exjw reddit, the
instructions from headquarters is that all you have to say now is
that you published during the month without handing any amount of
time.
This
really skewds the true numbers of membership of BAPTIZED MEMBERS, which in all honesty, the graph is not about baptized members, it's about "Publishers who includes those who are not baptized like children who will never get baptized and become actual members.
Of those that do get baptized the trend is going Pimo instead of getting disfellowshipped.
And still even with that, every year avg. about 43,300
BAPTIZED members who are
disfellowshipped and about two thirds never come back.
There is a reason why they don't have two day Kingdom Hall builts anymore.The "True" membership is just not there anymore.
Something I learned
in College is that statistics can be misleading.
Statistics are
persuasive. So much so that people, organizations, and whole
countries base some of their most important decisions on organized
data. But any set of statistics might have something lurking inside
it that can turn the results completely upside down.
Consider “Simpson’s
Paradox in the video below
https://www.ted.com/talks/mark_liddell_how_statistics_can_be_misleading
